Thursday, February 28, 2013

While working at the Detroit Tigers’ spring facility in Lakeland, Gov. Rick Scott announced today he will ask the Florida Legislature to set aside $5 million a year for projects specifically aimed at improving the Major League Baseball training facilities in the state.

“It’s my job as governor to make sure Florida remains the number one destination for spring training and that is why we will work to provide $5 million annually to only be used for spring training facilities,” Scott said in a statement that was released while Scott was participating in one of his “work days” with the Tigers at Joker Marchant Stadium in Lakeland.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

But that you concede the space for a personal decision in itself is a hell of a concession to personal autonomy. What's the authority for this and where does authority (the Words of Jesus, the Church, doctrine and commentators) come in? Does everyone have this space?

If you admit there are better Christians who would have more charity towards the creeps, why not defer to them as to that matter?

And how does this play out in the context of the greater society--how does believing and acting on this affect the laws and institutions of that overarching community?

Brain scans of convicted felons can predict which ones are most likely to get arrested after they get out of prison, scientists have found in a study of 96 male offenders.

“It’s the first time brain scans have been used to predict recidivism,” said neuroscientist Kent Kiehl of the Mind Research Network in Albuquerque, New Mexico, who led the new study. Even so, Kiehl and others caution that the method is nowhere near ready to be used in real-life decisions about sentencing or parole.

Generally speaking, brain scans or other neuromarkers could be useful in the criminal justice system if the benefits in terms of better accuracy outweigh the likely higher costs of the technology compared to conventional pencil-and-paper risk assessments, says Stephen Morse, a legal scholar specializing in criminal law and neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania. The key questions to ask, Morse says, are: “How much predictive accuracy does the marker add beyond usually less expensive behavioral measures? How subject is it to counter-measures if a subject wishes to ‘defeat’ a scan?”

Those are still open questions with regard to the new method, which Kiehl and colleagues, including postdoctoral fellow Eyal Aharoni, describe in a paper to be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The test targets impulsivity. In a mobile fMRI scanner the researchers trucked in to two state prisons, they scanned inmates’ brains as they did a simple impulse control task. Inmates were instructed to press a button as quickly as possible whenever they saw the letter X pop up on a screen inside the scanner, but not to press it if they saw the letter K. The task is rigged so that X pops up 84 percent of the time, which predisposes people to hit the button and makes it harder to suppress the impulse to press the button on the rare trials when a K pops up.

Based on previous studies, the researchers focused on the anterior cingulate cortex, one of several brain regions thought to be important for impulse control. Inmates with relatively low activity in the anterior cingulate made more errors on the task, suggesting a correlation with poor impulse control.

They were also more likely to get arrested after they were released. Inmates with relatively low anterior cingulate activity were roughly twice as likely as inmates with high anterior cingulate activity to be rearrested for a felony offense within 4 years of their release, even after controlling for other behavioral and psychological risk factors.

Matt, seriously. I like you and think you have a lot to offer on the site (both in baseball threads and politics threads) but this behavior is pretty childish, to loudly announce that you're so horrified by people saying things you're horrified by that you're going to leave the site. If you're going to leave, if you can't handle it, then just quietly leave, rather than making a spectacle of yourself. It's just another way to stifle discussion and dissent while portraying yourself as above it all.

Ray: I'm not MCoA (obviously), and nobody asked me, but I appreciated his sentiment. "Rickey" (I'll do him the favor he doesn't deserve or understand that he needs and not use his name as others have done) has said some irredeemably ###### up stuff in this thread. As has SBB. Ray, to your credit, I haven't seen anything remotely comparable from you to "Rickey's" opening volley, comparing the victim to a drunk driver that kills other people.

Matt really threatened to leave the entire site, not just the thread? Wow. What an infant.

Matt sometimes posts well but he's a vicious little dog at other times, and I'm not sorry to see him go. I recall within the last month, when he didn't like something SBB said, without elaboration he simply accused SBB of being a liar in other threads. No quotes, no specificity, just the worst sort of libel.

Apparently Matt feels he can behave thoroughly swinishly whenever he feels like slamming someone, if that's what it takes to smear them. I encourage him to take a year off from the internet, since he can't control himself.

Jack, you've referred in more insulting terms, cursed at and solely called ME more names than MCoA has probably ever used in his entire posting history. From you, calling him a vicious dog and swine who can't control himself is pretty rich.

Wellsir, I see this thread hasn't gone anywhere yet. Jim F. must be thrilled.

Should Jim wish to moderate this thread, he will drop by and do so. If he so chooses, it will be distinctive from your contributions to date in that it will likely be 1) tactful and constructive, and 2) mean something either way.

It's pretty clear what's going on. The identity liberal (*) can abide free discussion and inquiry and the search for truth only as long as, and so far as, it doesn't question the fundamental premise that the world is made up of victims and victimizers -- more precisely groups of victims and victimizers. Since this template is so critical to their political and social identity (**), they must control the means by which the narrative progresses and, indeed whether the narrative can progress at all. This is what Andy meant by "standing" -- the identity liberal is suffiiently attuned to victimization to advise, everyone else isn't.

When they lose control, or the fundamental premise for discussion is not accepted, and since the premise is so wrapped up in their identities, it sends them into paroxysms of one sort or another (***), all with a common theme. We can reasonably speculate that the hissy fits are stronger here because rape victims are so obviously and unquestionably victims -- as opposed to the "victims" the identity liberal typically champions -- but that's merely speculation.

(*) I.e., the devotee of identity politics.

(**) As white males.

(***) Declaring the thread a "sewer"; declaring the arguments whatever the hell adjectives tshipman used; engaging in comically lame efforts to suggest that data is being distorted, a la Andy and the MASS study; nonparticipants in the thread declaring their permanent separation from the site because of it.

It's pretty clear what's going on. The conservative can abide free discussion and inquiry and the search for truth only as long as, and so far as, it doesn't question the fundamental premise that the world is made up of victims and victimizers -- more precisely groups of victims and victimizers. Since this template is so critical to their political and social identity (**), they must control the means by which the narrative progresses and, indeed whether the narrative can progress at all.

This is what Andy meant by "standing" -- the identity liberal is suffiiently attuned to victimization to advise, everyone else isn't.

2813 is right on the money:

That Imperial Justice William Brennan once made that exact point when a majority kept refusing to hear certain category of cases on the basis of no standing: he said, by doing that you're just deciding the merits without actually going into the merits and laying it out before one and all. Sweeet.

Anytime someone reverts to the "we can't have that discussion, it's a sewer, you're creepy, that's icky, you must be a _____, but if not you are lending support to them", check your pants leg for that person is pissing on you and telling you it's raining, for that is the last desperate refuge of the utterly contemptible scoundrel who will slip you the green wienie every time and tell that it is nutritionally good for you. What's almost hilarious is that they personally recognize this when it comes to their bête noire and hobby horses.

Yes, I do include the "Hello, I just dropped in to say I must be going, you pervert" crowd. Then, like Groucho, they stay. It's a way of retreating while firing shots over your shoulder and then caterwauling at the other side, the meanies, firing back. But, it's not only them. It's those that lend them support and sustenance.

It's like the ragging that Bouton describes in Ball Four with regard to sex and wives and girlfriends. If you don't want to participate, stay out of it completely, but if you kibbitz or laugh at someone who is being ragged, then you're in (and you better put some armor on your butt).

It's like the ragging that Bouton describes in Ball Four with regard to sex and wives and girlfriends. If you don't want to participate, stay out of it completely, but if you kibbitz or laugh at someone who is being ragged, then you're in (and you better put some armor on your butt).

The same thing applies. The conversation is being had, but rather than deal with being disagreed with, you're bitching endlessly about the conversation not being had at all because a few people who aren't having the conversation are being mean to you. To repeat - it does not mean the conversation isn't occurring, so the more you repeat that non-fact, the less seriously you'll be taken.

Well, as Matt is now back and posting freely in other threads, at least his long BBTF nightmare is over.

It took him nearly a decade of posting here to discover that BBTF was such a sewer that he needed to take five days off and eat pints of Haagen Dazs instead, while reclining on a bed of straw laid gently on his fainting couch.

But that apparently solved the problem he had with BBTF, so he's back now.

(I jest, but parachuting in to a discussion you weren't participating in to loudly announce that you find the participants so vile that you are seriously thinking of never posting to the site again -- only to start reposting to the site just five days later -- is a bizarre juxtaposition. He is free to explain it on these pages if he cares to.)

who have waded in haughtily to declare themselves way, way superior to the conversation

I here and now haughtily declare myself WAY superior to the conversation of much of the past few weeks. That is why I have not posted much. I skim through and keep hoping the covnersation will move on, and someday it will. I keep looking for somethign to replace the coversation with, but not much excits me (plus I have been busy IRL).

I'd say the conversation has occurred, and at this point the only people continuing to beat the dead horse are folks on either side who prefer the fight for the sake of the fighting.

Yup. And I suspect they still chime in so when everyone else is bored they can declare victory for their side.

Well, as Matt is now back and posting freely in other threads, at least his long BBTF nightmare is over.

You are oddly obsessed with this, but he is a big boy so I don't feel I need to protect him, and I certainly can't besmirch his taste for ducking out of this thread.

But that is the same old same old. I mean you have wrote it (or its clone) many many times. I don't think that is going to spark a new or interesting sub thread (sadly). And yes I am purposely ignoring the thrust of your post, in a hauty manner (for what that's worth).

And let me tell you it is hard being hauty when you can't spell or type the few words you can spell.

The Prop 8 case may get kicked on standing, though that would bode ill for ballot initiatives (of which I'm a huge proponent -- I'll sign a petition to put anything on the ballot). It's pointless to force the government to enact laws they can then effectively refuse to defend in court.

It's hard to imagine the court going for the equal protection argument (whatever you think of the merits). I suspect if it doesn't get kicked on standing, Prop 8 will hold up since the court seems reluctant to recognize the equal protection argument as that world force every state in the union to recognize gay marriage.

DOMA seems doomed, though. Getting rid of DOMA would be a much bigger win, at least in terms of the practical effects. In the absence of DOMA, the Prop 8 case really is just about a word. While that's an important word, the practical impacts of DOMA have to outweigh it. At that point, you just need to win on the state level and are no longer subject to the opinions of people from states you don't live in.

The Prop 8 case may get kicked on standing, though that would bode ill for ballot initiatives (of which I'm a huge proponent -- I'll sign a petition to put anything on the ballot).

Living in California I hate ballot initiatives, it leads to bunch of very ill informed voters who don't understand the full complexities of the legislation (and I include myself in this group), voting on laws that are often very poorly written or bad ideas financially. Californians particularly love to vote for bonds, without thinking about the long repercussions of paying them off. Prop 8 was even more maddening, as you can amend the state constitution with only a simply majority, which seems crazy to me (laws against gay marriage were already struck down in state court, Prop 8 was an attempt to amend the state constitution to get around that).

I think ballot initiatives are okay in some circumstances but only when the issue is fairly simple, which isn't as often as most people think. Having a whole bunch of them seems to be defeat the purpose of electing representatives.

As a person who lives in California, I hate Propositions as well. The biggest issue is that it gives the legislative excuse to not do their jobs.

More like a "reason not to do their jobs" than an "excuse not to do their jobs". If 90% of the decisions you would make are already preempted by referendums, what are you supposed to do?

Fortunately for California legislators, they are barred from spending more than a couple terms in the legislature (a measure passed by, what else, a referendum), so instead of being doomed to an infinity of staring out the window and bouncing a ball against the wall, they can busy themselves preparing to go work for lobbyists.

More like a "reason not to do their jobs" than an "excuse not to do their jobs". If 90% of the decisions you would make are already preempted by referendums, what are you supposed to do?

Fortunately for California legislators, they are barred from spending more than a couple terms in the legislature (a measure passed by, what else, a referendum), so instead of being doomed to an infinity of staring out the window and bouncing a ball against the wall, they can busy themselves preparing to go work for lobbyists.

This doesn't explain until recently (until the last two years, and two years ago, they didn't even make the deadline) of passing a budget on time, and each budget being grossly out of balance. With the proposition process, passing a budget became the first priority of any sitting Assembly and with each passing year, it just got more late and pathetic, probably costing California billions in downgraded debt.

The two same-sex cases before the Supremes now are small beer, whichever way they turn out (or get disposed of).

Agreed. The trend lines for same sex marriage are clear. The SCOTUS is behind the people on this, so even if they bounce Prop 8 (not unlikely) it's just an excuse for California to revote to approve it again. I think DOMA gets overturned. I think Prop 8 either gets bounced, or (my personal preference) Kennedy goes for the rare no-vote because we shouldn't even be hearing the case angle.

Matt sometimes posts well but he's a vicious little dog at other times, and I'm not sorry to see him go. I recall within the last month, when he didn't like something SBB said, without elaboration he simply accused SBB of being a liar in other threads. No quotes, no specificity, just the worst sort of libel.

Apparently Matt feels he can behave thoroughly swinishly whenever he feels like slamming someone, if that's what it takes to smear them. I encourage him to take a year off from the internet, since he can't control himself.

Wow, he didn't like what another poster wrote one time, then made a post denigrating that person's character without including ANY quotes or ANY specifics? Wow. What kind of vicious dog swine would do something like that? Certainly, anyone who would deserves your contempt.

Jack, you've referred in more insulting terms, cursed at and solely called ME more names than MCoA has probably ever used in his entire posting history. From you, calling him a vicious dog and swine who can't control himself is pretty rich.

Nonsense, Lassus. If you bothered to read the threads you'd notice I never start things in that way. When someone acts like an asshole, though, well, I wasn't raised to suffer fools gladly.

When you start acting like a jerk, personally, towards me, why am I supposed to tolerate that? I can't tell if you're lying here, or really that confused. But by all means, find one thread where I started up with you, as opposed to the reverse.

Speaking of your bad habits, since you brought them to the fore, half the time you start something up it's when I'm dealing with another poster, and you decide to mix it up. You have only yourself to blame, boy.

Try not to take this the wrong way, but you're one of the few posters around here who has very little to offer. It's why I don't address you first, or what you write. You're just not interesting.

It's fine that you find him interesting. I'm not sure how you do, but I'll take your word for it. 95% of the time I comment towards him, though, is after he hassles me. There just isn't enough there otherwise, something I wouldn't have pointed out if he hadn't once again gnawed at my pants cuff. If you'd care to point out something interesting he's said, though, some part of the issue he's dealt with in detail, I'm always happy to reconsider.

A tip of the hat, btw, to SBB for #2813. Very well said.

I had thought that kind of characterization over the top as recently as three months ago, but after the Starlin Castro thread and the rights issues that arose there, the abject viciousness from the left therein, the lingering hostility and nastiness from the doctrinaire left since, then this thread, the "worst" of which has nothing in common with the victim blaming that goes on beyond BTF's borders, it's become clear just how accurate that characterization of SBB's in 2813 is.

Most of us are able to actually hold two ideas in our heads contemporaneously, without diluting either. Here:

1. Rape is always completely wrong.
2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance you will be raped...

Oh, what the hell....

1. Racism is always completely wrong.

2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance that someone will go all Arpaio on you.

The preceding message was brought to you by Sincere Friends of Minorities.

Pardon the sarcasm, Jack, but think about it for half a second.

If an Hispanic parent took aside his or her child and gave him a list like that, there wouldn't be any confusion about the intent. Black children were, and in many cases still are, given variants of that "conversation." And of course parents give the female version of it to their daughters every day, even though they know that in an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary. And it's not as if the advice you're thinking about is all that bad.

But the point is simply that to be blunt, you're not the one to be giving that "list" to anyone but your own daughter(s). Yes, I know, "free speech", "PC", and all that, but as someone who's usually a lot more sensible than the people who reflexively fall back on those catchphrases, you're a lot brighter than that, and you know it.

Think about what your reaction would be if you were black (and perhaps you are, I don't know one way or the other), and some well intentioned white person started telling you not to "talk black", not to dress too outrageously, and generally just to act as "white" as you could, because otherwise some not so well intentioned white person might start stereotyping you and causing you harm in the form of employment denial.

I'd think that if you were human, and especially if you didn't know that person, you'd wonder why he wasn't concentrating his or her energies on changing the minds of those not so well intentioned white people, rather than giving out unsolicited advice to you.

But to get back to your two part comment: We address the first part by law and public education, plus by parent (or surrogate parent) to son conversations. We address the second part by speaking to our own children, or at the very least, as woman to woman. If your bottom line is changing minds and actions rather than just making a speech, surely those are the best channels of pursuing those valuable messages. IOW it's not the message here that poses the practical problem of reaching your intended recipient, it's the messenger.**

**And by that, I don't mean you personally, but any male who's addressing your second point to anyone he's not directly responsible for.

This was several hundred posts back, but it's worth addressing, especially because--superficially--Jolly's argument has some appeal.

Jolly, I just know you understand that no one here is actually speaking *to* the young woman in Steubenville. By God, I'm certain of it. I just know you know (take the sarcasm in the spirit it's intended, please) that if that poor young woman appeared in my local coffee shop tomorrow, that I would no more tell her she should have not gotten drunk that night than immediately following his arrest I would advise a Latino to shuffle and mumble the next time he was in Arpaioville.***

To repeat:

But the point is simply that to be blunt, you're not the one to be giving that "list" to anyone but your own daughter(s).

This is simply, flatly false (you also contradict yourself within the space of your own post). It is seriously, seriously misguided. One reason rape is as prevalent as it is is because we, at the societal level, seem unable to tell young women how vulnerable they are to the worst of people, the repeat rapists who seek out drunk women.

In no other area are we this needlessly hypersensitive. We were able to reduce the prevalence of AIDS by speaking frankly about the behaviors that contributed to AIDS, without impugning homosexuals. (Although, no one imagined when we recommended condoms, we would do so in the waiting room immediately after some poor soul discovered he had AIDS.) Even straight people, incredibly enough, were able to speak frankly about the issue. We were further able to reduce the prevalence of AIDS without impugning intravenous drug users. Even THOSE OF US NOT ADDICTED TO HEROIN were able to do so.

In no other area, including murder, are we told we must tread so lightly. In no other area are we assumed to be admonishing the victim themselves so immediately after the fact, and to be speaking to the victim directly. Why would that be? Is it because the assumption is so utterly self-serving to those who want to shut that line of discussion down, as SBB ably suggests in 2813?

***I'm betting, too, that you really can tell the difference between advising a young woman to dress less provocatively, and advising a young woman not to drink herself into a defenseless coma because there are some vile, vicious people out there; the same way you can tell the difference between advising a young Latino to be servile, and advising a young Latino about the dangers that an Arpaio presents.

Even in the quality of your enemies, I am afraid you are letting us down Lassus. You need to find a better nemesis. The one you have now ... well you know. I am not saying it is your fault, but I think we would like you to spend your sleepless nights beating the crazy bushes to come up with some antagonist that fits your style better.

Jolly, I just know you understand that no one here is actually speaking *to* the young woman in Steubenville. By God, I'm certain of it. I just know you know (take the sarcasm in the spirit it's intended, please) that if that poor young woman appeared in my local coffee shop tomorrow, that I would no more tell her she should have not gotten drunk that night than immediately following his arrest I would advise a Latino to shuffle and mumble the next time he was in Arpaioville.***

Okay, I realize that this may seem a pedantic point to you, but I draw the line between a public forum populated almost entirely by men giving advice to women, and a public service campaign with a message that comes from a much broader demographic segment of the community.

As I've indicated elsewhere in this thread, I'm not opposed to public service rape awareness (or STD or cancer awareness) campaigns, because IMO the bottom line is that they can save lives. And of course I'd be giving similar advice to my daughter, except that I don't have a daughter. But I'd feel a lot better about offering advice to women in a forum like this if there were actually some women present. Doesn't mean I disagree with what amounts to common sense precautionary advice, it just gets back to the question of standing. That POV apparently doesn't register with a lot of people here, but it still resonates for me.

***I'm betting, too, that you really can tell the difference between advising a young woman to dress less provocatively, and advising a young woman not to drink herself into a defenseless coma because there are some vile, vicious people out there; the same way you can tell the difference between advising a young Latino to be servile, and advising a young Latino about the dangers that an Arpaio presents.

Trust me, if I had a daughter, Mrs. JOSN and I would most definitely be having "the conversation" with her about a lot of things along these lines. Again, it's not the message, it's the messenger.

One reason rape is as prevalent as it is is because we, at the societal level, seem unable to tell young women how vulnerable they are to the worst of people, the repeat rapists who seek out drunk women.

Is there any proof or even support for this assertion? Seriously young women are told all the time how vulnerable they are. They know. I am one small dude (5' 3"), I am very not threatening (middle aged average build very short white guys not the most threatening demographic), but walking down the street I have noticed that women will (sometimes) get nervous if I am following them (i.e. headed in the same direction), especially in quiet areas and if they are alone. And yes when I notice this I go out of my way to slow down, cross the street or otherwise do what I can to reassure them I am not stalking them.

If I make them nervous, anyone can and likely does. How screwed up is the world where any random non threatening male can scare a woman just by happening to be behind them heading inthe same direction? And you contention is young woman don't know they are vulnerable? Hogwash, even accounting for "dude that is just an anecdote" there is a huge amount of information that speaks to their knowledge.

Thing is though they have to live with the fear 24x7. It is not just hey I am a a party I better be careful, it is this is my life I have to be careful. And no one is careful always. No one is 100% vigilent and they shouldn't have to be. Putting the burden of 100% vigilence on the woman is basically telling them they have to be (and the burden belongs on people to not break the law, btw).

It is not just don't drink in parties it is also don't walk along in 'x' places, especially at 'y' times. Always be suspicious of men, even if you know them, if you are along with them, and hundreds of other rules. It is absurd and a horrible way to have to live - one should be able to be free of that sort of fear, but in today's society woman are not and that is a shame.

Is there any proof or even support for this assertion? Seriously young women are told all the time how vulnerable they are. They know. I am one small dude (5' 3"), I am very not threatening (middle aged average build very short white guys not the most threatening demographic), but walking down the street I have noticed that women will (sometimes) get nervous if I am following them (i.e. headed in the same direction), especially in quiet areas and if they are alone. And yes when I notice this I go out of my way to slow down, cross the street or otherwise do what I can to reassure them I am not stalking them.

Cool, I thought I was the only one!

Though also I'm a pretty big guy with a beard, (on more than one occasion I've heard strangers mutter "Cactus Jack" as they walk past me). So it's good to know it's not just me that does this.

During a discussion about ongoing challenges to the economy Thursday, Alaska Republican Rep. Don Young referred to Hispanic workers as "wetbacks," an ethnic slur used to describe migrant workers.

“My father had a ranch; we used to have 50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes,” Young told Alaska public radio station KRBD. “It takes two people to pick the same tomatoes now. It’s all done by machine.”

The term "wetback" is a pejorative term that has been used to describe workers from Latin American countries who swim across the Rio Grande to reach the United States.

Young's comments come just weeks after the Republican National Committee called for candidates and lawmakers to soften their tone when discussing Hispanic Americans and immigrants in an effort to engage Latino voters after getting only 30 percent of their vote in the 2012 presidential election. Republicans are currently working with Democrats in Congress to shape a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration system, and comments like Young's could serve as a distraction from those bipartisan efforts.

In a statement to the Anchorage Daily News, Young apologized for using the phrase to describe the workers, saying he meant "no disrespect."

"I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in Central California," Young said in the statement. "I know that this term is not used in the same way nowadays and I meant no disrespect."

Back in the '90s, after an Arkansas legislator overheard using the term "wetbacks" was the subject of a story in my newspaper, our editorial writer (at whose waist Tucker Carlson had previously suckled, as it happens) let it be known that nothing was wrong with such a term; it was "a colorful Americanism." I'm pretty sure he did so because the looney-tunes executive editor insisted on it.

Whether the editorial writer, who was Jewish, would've objected to being called a Hebe, Yid or Kike, I'm not sure.

Whether the editorial writer, who was Jewish, would've objected to being called a Hebe, Yid or Kike, I'm not sure.

We're long past America's golden age of colorful Jewish pejoratives, but the term "sheeny" always makes me laugh for some reason. Reading old boxing articles about Benny Leonard and the like from the 1920s can be a very amusing diversion occasionally.

We're long past America's golden age of colorful Jewish pejoratives, but the term "sheeny" always makes me laugh for some reason. Reading old boxing articles about Benny Leonard and the like from the 1920s can be a very amusing diversion occasionally.

The only reason I support all of the liberal causes I do is because I want to live in a future world where I can use all of these old epithets freely when insulting you people.

We're long past America's golden age of colorful Jewish pejoratives, but the term "sheeny" always makes me laugh for some reason. Reading old boxing articles about Benny Leonard and the like from the 1920s can be a very amusing diversion occasionally.

And this is where I hope the "modern" pejoritives go to die, to be looked back with bemusement. I have no problem with individual verbal attacks - "Bitter Mouse is a moron", is for example a fine turn of phrase and welcome in discussions, especially when backed up with clear evidence. It is "class of people X are all Y" that is at issue that (IMO) the PC movement is trying to erode.

Generalization it a strength in how the human brain works. It is built in, it is a survival trait, and something we use even more than our "cave man" ancestors in order to deal with a very complex world. So having occasional reminders a certain class of generlization is not OK is useful and is hardly "supression of free thought and expression".

EDIT: However Ricky!, you can use whatever pejoritive you like when referring to me. I promise I won't be offended.

"Sheeny" is an odd one, to me at least, simply because I've encountered it a lot less than the others, for whatever reason. (In dialogue in books or movies, that is. AFAIK, the closest thing my hometown had to a Jewish population when I was growing up was my mother, whose father was Jewish. For that matter, I knew of only one Catholic.) If I'd had to guess when I first encountered it, I think I'd have taken it as a slur against the Irish ... though I'm not sure why.

"Sheeny" is an archaic term I've never actually heard used outside of very old primary sources, and lord knows I've heard more than my fair share of Jewish pejoratives. This author takes a crack at its etymology.

When I first encountered the term (used in reference to Joe Louis's Jewish manager Mike Jacobs) I asked my grandfather what it meant and he said he hadn't heard that term since the mid-50s at the latest and he heard more anti-Jewish commentary than most, being blonde with blue eyes.

Not that anyone cares, but upon further thought I believe my initial exposure to "sheeny" was in reference to a different Jacobs - not Mike Jacobs, the manager of Joe Louis, but Joe Jacobs, the legendary Jewish manager and promoter who's colorful bombast defies exaggeration. Don't believe me? Here's a short article on the man featuring a photo of him giving a Nazi salute in Germany, cigar in hand, after his fighter Max Schmeling won a fight with Nazi leaders in the front row.

In no other area are we this needlessly hypersensitive. We were able to reduce the prevalence of AIDS by speaking frankly about the behaviors that contributed to AIDS, without impugning homosexuals. (Although, no one imagined when we recommended condoms, we would do so in the waiting room immediately after some poor soul discovered he had AIDS.) Even straight people, incredibly enough, were able to speak frankly about the issue. We were further able to reduce the prevalence of AIDS without impugning intravenous drug users. Even THOSE OF US NOT ADDICTED TO HEROIN were able to do so.

I don't get out all that much, but the closest I've ever been to actually knowing the details of unwanted sexual assault was an incident involving a couple of grade school classmates. Who were boys. Lutheran grade school, befriended by a single pastor at the church. An incident was reported, the pastor transferred out and eventually left the ministry. Don't know how strongly he was pushed to do that.

At no point then or now did I think "Wow, I wonder what the boys did to bring that on!" I have daughters, and also a son. The son as well as the daughters will need to be told that adults aren't permitted to do certain things.

Women, children of both sexes, and men in prison are sexually assaulted primarily because they are alive. ANY behavior these people undertake will be arousing to some portion of the male populace. I'm a male, believe me, I know. The males who lack impulse control and/or are prone to violence turn to sexual assault and rape.

Women, children of both sexes, and men in prison are sexually assaulted primarily because they are alive. ANY behavior these people undertake will be arousing to some portion of the male populace. I'm a male, believe me, I know. The males who lack impulse control and/or are prone to violence turn to sexual assault and rape.

I think this is the biggest reason why "trying to stop the rapists" will never be close to enough. I mean, are there really many people out there that don't know that sexual assault and rape are bad? Or that an unconscious person can't consent? You would think that "don't penetrate another human being with anything without their consent" would be baseline behavior for a non-deranged human being in any sort of civilized society.

I also think the conflation of cases where there is a reasonable and good-faith belief in consent and a conscious awareness of the lack of consent has done a tremendous amount of damage to society's impression of how to handle the issue. There is, and I think there should be, a fundamental resistance to the idea that the difference between guilt and innocence can depend entirely on another person's mental state. That's where all of the "what was she wearing? what did she say? how did she act?" stuff comes from; we are very reluctant to see what most people consider monstrous behavior in another human being when simple mistake or carelessness could explain things. People are guilty of misunderstandings all the time.

Add to that the idea that most people believe that it would be practically impossible to mistake consent unless the signals were extremely, almost deliberately misleading. So essentially, they put people accused of rape into two camps: horrible monsters who don't care whether they have consent, and people who had reasonable, good-faith belief that consent was given.

Once you're in the "horrible monster" group, there's rarely much disagreement among non-extreme people about the perpetrators being wrong. There may be a question of how serious a punishment is warranted but practically nobody is okay with the behavior. Those are people we can't really imagine being; they're fundamentally defective in some way that normal folks aren't. But the other group? It's not so easy.

So does North Korea just want the attention or foreign aid? I don't know enough about foreign affairs to begin to make sense of this. My understanding is that North Korea could barely launch an attack (not even a nuclear one, as I understand) against South Korea, let alone anywhere else in the world.

Best guess is that Kim Jong Un is attempting to shore up his support among the military leaders.

It could also be them angling for foreign aid. Relations with China have cooled so much since the underground nuclear tests that China is actually participating in UN trade sanctions.

The joke I've heard, to give you some idea of the state of North Korea's resources, is that their troops aren't amassed at the DMZ because they are preparing for an invasion -- they were actually in the midst of invading when all their vehicles ran out of gas.

I think this is the biggest reason why "trying to stop the rapists" will never be close to enough. I mean, are there really many people out there that don't know that sexual assault and rape are bad? Or that an unconscious person can't consent? You would think that "don't penetrate another human being with anything without their consent" would be baseline behavior for a non-deranged human being in any sort of civilized society.

Here's the thing. Just about everyone would agree with the above. What often happens then is that "consent" is defined down:

A woman who gets drunk is giving consent.
A woman who wears a sexy dress is giving consent.
A woman who has had multiple sexual partners is giving consent.
A woman who smiles at you is giving consent.
A woman who says "no, I don't want to have sex" is being a bit of a tease, but is really giving consent.

You don't have to go far to hear all of the above, in spades. What's more, this is aided and abetted by the attitude that many, if not most, accusations of rape occur when the woman gives consent but later has second thoughts. That idea, sadly, is also widespread. So rape is pushed away to the corners of human behavior, such as the enemy soldier capturing your village, or the burglar breaking into your home and assaulting your wife. If it's not one of those rare situations, however, it is assumed that no rape occurred.

On first impression, this is kind of hard to believe. Yeah, it's The Weekly Standard, but view the video. PP is skirting the edge, it seems like, at the very least. The PP rep is reluctant to make her case. What isn't gone into is what state of babyhood would survive an abortion attempt. But the PP spokesman puts a post-birth result in terms of the woman's option when it comes to destroying it.

This is their position taken to its logical extreme. There is no reason for a baby to have different rights on one side of the birth canal than the other. If leftists are pushing for euthanasia where we can kill problematic old people, why not kill problematic young people?

You forget, PP was founded as a racist, eugenic organization. Margaret Sanger's goal was to keep the coloreds and papists from out-breeding good White Anglo-Saxon Protestans.

You forget, PP was founded as a racist, eugenic organization. Margaret Sanger's goal was to keep the coloreds and Catholics from out-breeding good Anglo-Saxon stock.

Sanger was a complicated bird. She's everything you say she was in her promotion of eugenics, restrictive immigration, and theories of racial superiority, and there's little way to rationalize that other than to say that crackpot science will always find its adherents among otherwise humane and intelligent people.

But OTOH she was against euthanasia, and worked with black organizations in setting up Planned Parenthood clinics in black neighborhoods, staffing them with African American doctors and nurses. She was backed in those efforts by W.E.B. DuBois, who noted that unlike the leaders of many social reform groups, Sanger practiced no racial discrimination in her hiring practices and was totally opposed to Jim Crow laws and mores. Martin Luther King himself was a recipient of the Margaret Sanger award, which can tell you that the caricature of her that we see so often today is not exactly the whole picture.

But OTOH she was against euthanasia, and worked with black organizations in setting up Planned Parenthood clinics in black neighborhoods, staffing them with African American doctors and nurses. She was backed in those efforts by W.E.B. DuBois, who noted that unlike the leaders of many social reform groups, Sanger practiced no racial discrimination in her hiring practices and was totally opposed to Jim Crow laws and mores. Martin Luther King himself was a recipient of the Margaret Sanger award, which can tell you that the caricature of her that we see so often today is not exactly the whole picture.

But Andy, she set up PP clinics in black neighborhoods b/c she wanted to stop blacks from reproducing. She hired black staff b/c she knew it would convince more black women to come.

Seriously, crediting Margaret Sanger for her treatment of blacks is like praising Heinrich Himmler for offering free sterilization to Jews, and partially staffing his camps with Jewish trustees.

But Andy, [Sanger] set up PP clinics in black neighborhoods b/c she wanted to stop blacks from reproducing. She hired black staff b/c she knew it would convince more black women to come.

Then why didn't she close all of her clinics in the many more white neighborhoods where they were established? The Nazis were paying their favored racial types to breed indiscriminately, with or without the benefit of clergy. Why wasn't Sanger calling for childbearing bonuses to the Nordic types in New England and the upper midwest?

Seriously, crediting Margaret Sanger for her treatment of blacks is like praising Heinrich Himmler for offering free sterilization to Jews, and partially staffing his camps with Jewish trustees.

Sanger's goals were very, very similar to Himmler's.

Hell, Nazism's race/eugenic policies were largely cribbed from American and British eugenicists.

Indeed they were, and it's a stain against all of them. But there are degrees of horror, and Sanger's actual deeds weren't remotely on the level of anything established by the Nazis. Do you really think that W.E.B. DuBois would have signed up with a woman who was some sort of a crypto-Himmler? Do you think that an organization with the exterminationist tendencies you impute to it would be handing out awards to Martin Luther King?

It should be pointed out that this is an incredibly disingenuous misinterpretation of the pro-choice agenda. Logical extreme my ass.

When PP and the pro-choice establishment opposes bills that force abortionist to offer medical aid to babies mistakenly allowed to be born alive, they expose there agenda quite clearly.

Their goal is to allow women to dispose of any inconvenient child at any cost, and they don't give a damn about the children. Give them a decade, and they'll be with Peter Singer calling for legal infanticide.

Indeed they were, and it's a stain against all of them. But there are degrees of horror, and Sanger's actual deeds weren't remotely on the level of anything established by the Nazis. Do you really think that W.E.B. DuBois would have signed up with a woman who was some sort of a crypto-Himmler? Do you think that an organization with the exterminationist tendencies you impute to it would be handing out awards to Martin Luther King?

I'm not saying she was as bad as the Nazis. I'm just saying she was a vicious racist whose goal was to kill babies of the races and group she found "inferior".

The fact that an organization founded by her survives today is as shocking as if the German American Bund or the CPUSA was a major political force.

I'm not saying she was as bad as the Nazis. I'm just saying she was a vicious racist whose goal was to kill babies of the races and group she found "inferior".

Again, it's kind of curious that such a "vicious racist" opposed Jim Crow, worked with blacks within her organization, and had the support of many of the leading African Americans of her day.

The fact that an organization founded by her survives today is as shocking as if the German American Bund or the CPUSA was a major political force.

I'll let you wallow in your rhetoric, but if you extended that sort of reasoning to our two major parties, they both would have voluntarily disbanded long ago, either because of the views of their founders or the views of those who succeeded them. Times change and organizations evolve.

Again, it's kind of curious that such a "vicious racist" opposed Jim Crow, worked with blacks within her organization, and had the support of many of the leading African Americans of her day.

Yeah, well George Wallace was more of a friend of black people than a woman who started the movement that has led to 40% of black children being terminated before birth.

I find it an odd moral calculus where supporting civil rights laws offsets quasi-genocidal actions. It just goes to how how much the liberal mindset has sold its soul to the "god" of consequence free sex, all is forgiven Sanger b/c she is the patron saint of artificial birth control and abortion.

Yeah, well George Wallace was more of a friend of black people than a woman who started the movement that has led to 40% of black children being terminated before birth.

I doubt if you'd find much support for that assertion among the black people of either Sanger's heyday or during Wallace's reign as Governor.** Sanger's views were centered on a woman's control of her reproductive choices and creating safe conditions for childbirth, and not nearly as focused on eugenics as you're making them out to be. But maybe you're a more qualified spokesman for blacks than DuBois or Dr. King.

I find it an odd moral calculus where supporting civil rights laws offsets quasi-genocidal actions. It just goes to how how much the liberal mindset has sold its soul to the "god" of consequence free sex, all is forgiven Sanger b/c she is the patron saint of artificial birth control and abortion.

I'll give you the last word on that, since nothing short of a conversion miracle could ever dissuade you from your opinions on that particular subject.

**Although the Communist poster woman Angela Davis was briefly talking about genocidal conspiracies along roughly the same lines as you're doing, I doubt you'd have wanted to share a podium with her.